About your Search

20121227
20121227
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6 (some duplicates have been removed)
pretty hard things well. one is to lead the pentagon out of afghanistan, lead our military into redefining itself as to what does it do? why do you serve in the post-post-9/11 era? second, lead the country in more defense spending cuts, which is coming. and third thing is really to lead the nation through a discussion of what's our military for in the post-post-9/11 era? what's the role of counterterrorism? what are the limits of counterterrorism? what are we doing in asia? how do we work with our allies in china and asia? where has the pentagon taken powers that maybe need to go back to the civilian agencies? those are three enormous jobs that require you to work well with congress, to work well with the defense industry, to be trusted with our men and women in uniform and to have a really close relationship with the president. that's a big job description. >> so if we paint this sort of job description as guiding the pentagon through that period, it sounds like reimagining. how do you see the strengths and weakness of the front runners? >> the first thing to say about sen
. they seem desperate to do that. plenty of liberals say, go over the cliff. big cuts in the pentagon and big tax hikes. the white house, from all indications that i've seen, they don't want that to happen. they are scared of what could happen to the markets. >> why aren't they dalg dealing with boehner? dana, be go ahead. jumpb in here. >> i think they won their negotiating power once boehner last week failed. as dana pushed out, the only thing that can get boehner is to do something. >> reporter: i think that you're right when i said that democrats don't think that the president will have much political damage. that does seem to be coming more from democrats here in congress than in the white house. democrats here in congress feel that it's a win-win for them politically. the one thing i will tell you very quickly, the pushback on this narrative that i heard from senate republican leader in the hallway. he said, do you remember who the speaker was during the hoover administration? i said, no. he said, that's my point. nobody will remember who the speaker was if ge into a recession but it's
part of some last-second deal. hit the defense department. but the pentagon's real problem is not those cuts, but the ones that are going to be coming over the next decade. we talked to military contractors, top officials at the pentagon. they see a long period of downward decline. that after the war in afghanistan, there's going to be a period of austerity. they're calling it -- they have a term around the pentagon, a very graphic self-amputation as they cut back over the years. and this was one of the reasons that president obama had, at the top of his short list, the former republican senator, still a republican, chuck hagel of nebraska. he's somebody who's talked about the pentagon as being bloated, had very specific ideas about how to cut it. but mike, sam, the table, we're hearing that that trial balloon has been popped. that senator hagel has a possibility for secretary of defense, has really lost a lot of altitude. and what they discovered was, there's not a natural constituency for him. republicans, as you guys know, have fought with him over the years. he was against the war i
, it is not a philanthropic act on the pentagon's part to instruct boeing to build. -- to build in the deficit areas of the u.s. it is pragmatic. the united states federal government -- unless europe is dollarized, unless they do not have dollars to spend purchasing -- unless those who do not have dollars are given dollars to spend purchasing, the net exports of those who have surpluses, then they will stop having surplus. this is the surplus recycling mechanism. thus, we have the 20 years of the golden age. the 1950's and the 1960's. a period of immense stability very low inflation. very low unemployment. universal growth. we had other problems. the lease from the macroeconomic point of view, it was a golden age. why did it end? because the global surplus of recycling mechanism could no longer be sustained. why? because the united states stopped having a surplus by the end of the 1960's. how can you recycle surplus if you cannot have it. -- if you do not have it? enter a young turk in 1971. actually, he was the american, but you know what i mean. well, paul volcker -- that name may ring a bell. in 1971, pau
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)